• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

In the US: Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?

Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?


  • Total voters
    60
When I was 7, due to pressure from relatives, my family started attending church. The first few times I was in the pews, but I was old enough so I was dropped off in Bible study for little kids. The class was studying Noah and the Ark. New to this stuff I thought it was a silly story, could never happen like that, and said so. I got stood in the corner. I told my Mom about it, she was upset, Dad not so much, so we went the following week. The next class got my knuckles rapped with a ruler and stood in the corner. I recall loud words between the nun and my Mom in the hall. We never went back.

So, was I educated 7 year old? No. Was I rational? Yes. Was I being indoctrinated at a very young age? Yes. Was it ever going to work? No. Had scientists been indoctrinating me? No.

Now that I’m much older: Do I respect authority? Yes Do I question authority? Yes. Do I verify and test what I’m told? Yes? Do I believe in evolution? No. Do I think evolution is a proven fact? Yes. Still the same person I was at 7? Yes.
 
Which is irrelevant. Humans have an amazing ability to compartmentalize. Your physicist friend may be brilliant in his physics, but in his religious views, he certainly isn't.

And you are assuming based on???? The fact he is a JW? plenty of JW are smart people when it comes to their system of belief.
 
Yeah, I know.

He's different in religion, he refuses to look at anything but the Bible, which is a little closeminded.

Close minded compared to what? Your view of what his religion should be?
 
When I was 7, due to pressure from relatives, my family started attending church. The first few times I was in the pews, but I was old enough so I was dropped off in Bible study for little kids. The class was studying Noah and the Ark. New to this stuff I thought it was a silly story, could never happen like that, and said so. I got stood in the corner. I told my Mom about it, she was upset, Dad not so much, so we went the following week. The next class got my knuckles rapped with a ruler and stood in the corner. I recall loud words between the nun and my Mom in the hall. We never went back.

So, was I educated 7 year old? No. Was I rational? Yes. Was I being indoctrinated at a very young age? Yes. Was it ever going to work? No. Had scientists been indoctrinating me? No.

Now that I’m much older: Do I respect authority? Yes Do I question authority? Yes. Do I verify and test what I’m told? Yes? Do I believe in evolution? No. Do I think evolution is a proven fact? Yes. Still the same person I was at 7? Yes.

Excellent. Have no idea what this has to do with the debate at hand though? So you say evolution is a fact and because you went to a Bible study 2 times, you were subjected to indoctrination. What does that have to do with the poll or thread?
 
Close minded compared to what? Your view of what his religion should be?

Closeminded compared to the person he usually is, not my view of what his religion should be. He becomes a different person when he talks about religion.
 
And you are assuming based on???? The fact he is a JW? plenty of JW are smart people when it comes to their system of belief.

No, the fact that he believes something for which there is no objective evidence. The same would be true if he believed in unicorns.
 
He's different in religion, he refuses to look at anything but the Bible, which is a little closeminded.

I wouldn't even say that. The fact that, as a physicist who is trained to look at evidence and evaluate ideas logically and rationally, someone can turn around and embrace other ideas entirely illogically and irrationally and purposely not look for supporting objective evidence is a sign of compartmentalization, the ability to wall off certain aspects of life from practices which are routine and commonplace in other aspects of their life.
 
Closeminded compared to the person he usually is, not my view of what his religion should be. He becomes a different person when he talks about religion.

OK I see what you mean. Yea I know people that are similar.
 
No, the fact that he believes something for which there is no objective evidence. The same would be true if he believed in unicorns.

Faith does not require objective evidence, science does.
 
Faith does not require objective evidence.

Exactly!! Faith only requires personal conviction. We saw the power of faith when 19 highly educated men, many of which had degrees, some even PhD's, hijacked planes and flew them into buildings because they were absolutely certain that their beliefs regarding the afterlife and God were true. Not based on reason. Not based on evidence. Based entirely on FAITH.

How many atrocities, wasted lives, and whacky ideas must you be presented with before you recognize that the irrational certainty, faith, is NOT something to be revered and applauded?
 
Last edited:
If you have spent any real time on this forum you're fully aware of the debate raging between those who support evolution and those who do not. There is little doubt that when examined as a whole, the majority of the scientific community overwhelmingly supports evolution as a logical explanation for the development of life. There is also little doubt that the majority of the American populace does not support evolution as explained by scientists. 78% of Americans believe God was involvement in the creation of humans either through creating us in our present form or by guiding the evolutionary process. Not surprisingly 76% of Americans consider themselves to be Christians. These numbers lead to believe that since there is little evidence for a 'debate among evolutionary scientists' the debate on evolution is between scientists and the religious. Do you agree? If not then I welcome you to support your statement.

This vote is public so vote only if you're willing to substantiate your answer.

This is not a debate on evolution but a debate on the debate itself.

I'm Catholic. Evolution makes sense. God had a role. Evolution and religion are not contradictory concepts. I accept creation and evolution.
 
:lol: Redress simply meant it's those that are informed v. those that aren't, or are wilfully ignorant, though it's funny to see that you automatically assumed she was calling religious people ignorant.

Maybe because I don't think Redress is religious.
 
Exactly!! Faith only requires personal conviction. We saw the power of faith when 19 highly educated men, many of which had degrees, some even PhD's, hijacked planes and flew them into buildings because they were absolutely certain that their beliefs regarding the afterlife and God were true. Not based on reason. Not based on evidence. Based entirely on FAITH.

So what? People have done much worse with no conviction or "FAITH" at all.

How many atrocities, wasted lives, and whacky ideas must you be presented with before you recognize that the irrational certainty, faith, is NOT something to be revered and applauded?

Atrcities like ...

Afghanistan 1978–1992 1,750,000
Albania 1944–1985 100,000
Angola 1975–2002 125,000
Bulgaria 1944–1989 222,000
China/PRC 1923–2007 76,702,000
Cuba 1959–1992 73,000
Czechoslovakia 1948–1968 65,000
Ethiopia 1974–1991 1,343,610
France 1793–1794 40,000
Greece 1946–1949 20,000
Hungary 1948–1989 27,000
Kampuchea/Cambodia 1973–1991 2,627,000
Laos 1975–2007 93,000
Mongolia 1926–2007 100,000
Mozambique 1975–1990 118,000
North Korea 1948–2007 3,163,000
Poland 1945–1948 1,607,000
Romania 1948–1987 438,000
Spain (Republic) 1936–1939 102,000
U.S.S.R. 1917–1987 61,911,000
Vietnam 1945–2007 1,670,000
Yugoslavia 1944–1980 1,072,000

None of which had anything to do with religion. It was man's inhumanity to man, nothing more.

Your point is pretty much off topic, has little to do with my comment and is asinine at best.
 
I see this is quite a long thread, and I've just logged on to it, but this second post says it all.

Then this makes me ignorant despite the fact that I have studied evolution and am a molecular biology major with a 3.0+ GPA. But I guess I'm ignorant for believing in creationism and acknowledging the flaws in evolution. I find statements like that to be judgmental and offensive.
 
I disagree. Advances in science, including Biology have profound impacts on technology such as food production and medical care. Evolution has had a particular important impact on our understanding and prevention of disease as the link specifically points out.

Historical evolutionary theory did not create technology. You this is a strawman argument; we are not talking about applied science. We are talking about the theory of evolution mainly applied to human historical evolution. When the discussion of evolution comes up in these debates, it is only about where humans come from. This topic doesn't feed people. Nor does it help them, nor is it really important as knowing where we come from wont change anything now.

I'm not really sure how any type of hard science helps people gain political power.

It doesn't. Therefore, as a political topic, historical evolution discussion should stop all together. It doesn't matter in peoples lives and it never really will.


Most people don't use working knowledge of MOST scientific theories in everyday life. E.G., even before the theory of gravitation was put forth--which allowed precise calculations of distance, speed and acceleration--people knew that things fell downwards. Your criticism can be applied to just about any scientific theory.

Not quite. You used gravity as an example. People use gravity everyday. I just dropped my mouse on the couch. Gravity made it fall. I just tested the theory so to speak. Historical evolutionary theory, which we are talking about no matter what you would like to discuss about applied sciences, is not used by anyone and doesn't effect anyone today accept evolutionary historians and archeologists.

I do agree with you though. there is no debate here but we differ on why their is no debate. You say science has won and I would agree. But the larger issue is utility, of which the theory of evolution, has none.
 
I was taught the same thing as a child. Then I grew up and discovered for myself. I see no problem with the myth. It comforts some people. It isn't science. It is literature and folklore.

That being said, many evolutionists like to think of man as some sort of godlike creature. That too is fictitious. Man is an advanced highly evolved animal.
 
Then this makes me ignorant despite the fact that I have studied evolution and am a molecular biology major with a 3.0+ GPA. But I guess I'm ignorant for believing in creationism and acknowledging the flaws in evolution. I find statements like that to be judgmental and offensive.

That depends on what you mean by "creationism". If you believe that Genesis is to be taken literally, then yes, I can see how you would find it offensive. If you believe that evolution was the way that god created life, then there is no need to be offended.

What I find absolutely incomprehensible is that some people still, now in the 21st. century no less, say that evolution is "just a theory" and is not to be taken as accurate.
 
So what? People have done much worse with no conviction or "FAITH" at all.


Atrcities like ...

Afghanistan 1978–1992 1,750,000
Albania 1944–1985 100,000
Angola 1975–2002 125,000
Bulgaria 1944–1989 222,000
China/PRC 1923–2007 76,702,000
Cuba 1959–1992 73,000
Czechoslovakia 1948–1968 65,000
Ethiopia 1974–1991 1,343,610
France 1793–1794 40,000
Greece 1946–1949 20,000
Hungary 1948–1989 27,000
Kampuchea/Cambodia 1973–1991 2,627,000
Laos 1975–2007 93,000
Mongolia 1926–2007 100,000
Mozambique 1975–1990 118,000
North Korea 1948–2007 3,163,000
Poland 1945–1948 1,607,000
Romania 1948–1987 438,000
Spain (Republic) 1936–1939 102,000
U.S.S.R. 1917–1987 61,911,000
Vietnam 1945–2007 1,670,000
Yugoslavia 1944–1980 1,072,000

None of which had anything to do with religion. It was man's inhumanity to man, nothing more.
Man's inhumanity? What does that even mean?

I agree that people can do horrible things for other reasons that aren't caused or related to having faith in a particular religion or ideology. But why is that relevant to my response which criticizes the atrocities committed by those who justify their actions and beliefs by "faith"? You are trying to divert attention from the fact that people do horrible things because of faith.

Faith is one of the WORST justifications (if not THE worst) for believing something. If someone does something because they believe reason and evidence supports their actions then at least a discussion/debate can occur. For people with faith, its not possible. You can't reason or debate someone who invokes "faith". This is why christianity, islam, and other faith based religions are divisive. Faith-based claims are often incompatible with eachother (even amongst competing sects). This leads to conflict because there is no way to reconcile, debate, or discuss differences because faith is NOT based on evidence or reason.

"Faith" was the "reason" that Muslims flew airplanes into buildings. Make excuses and dance around the issue all you want. The evidence is incontrovertible. Turn on the internet and you can watch yourself as Muslims exclaim with pride that their faith in the Koran, Allah, and the paradise that awaits them in the afterlife, just before they blow themselves up. This faith-based certainty is NOT a problem exclusive to Muslims. Christians are IDENTICAL in their certainty.
 
That depends on what you mean by "creationism". If you believe that Genesis is to be taken literally, then yes, I can see how you would find it offensive. If you believe that evolution was the way that god created life, then there is no need to be offended.

What I find absolutely incomprehensible is that some people still, now in the 21st. century no less, say that evolution is "just a theory" and is not to be taken as accurate.

It is a theory, a scientific theory.
Just like, say, a mathematical theorem.

Whatever, let them say it is "just a theory". But really, what more than a scientific theory could you want? They're about as close to fact as we get in science.
 
I'm Catholic. Evolution makes sense. God had a role. Evolution and religion are not contradictory concepts. I accept creation and evolution.

Exactly. Evolution is a scientific theory to explain the progression of species on this planet. A progression that is well marked through the fossil record. To debate evolution is to debate the fossil record. Science and religion are two separate subjects that seek two separate types of answers. Nothing in science or evolution will ever prove or disprove gods. Religion and science can very easily co-exist.
 
I do agree with you though. there is no debate here but we differ on why their is no debate. You say science has won and I would agree. But the larger issue is utility, of which the theory of evolution, has none.

There's always utility in knowledge.
 
Man's inhumanity? What does that even mean?

You have got to be kidding?

I agree that people can do horrible things for other reasons that aren't caused or related to having faith in a particular religion or ideology. But why is that relevant to my response which criticizes the atrocities committed by those who justify their actions and beliefs by "faith"? You are trying to divert attention from the fact that people do horrible things because of faith.

I pointed out correctly more "atrocities" have happened and people murdered in the name of man's own inherent need for power in just the 20th century than all people dying for or because of religion in all of history combined.

So because of the atrocity's committed in the name of religion or "faith" you say it is not worthy to be "revered" or "applauded."

How many non-religious aid organizations exist?

Around 13 non Christian-Catholic or not religiously affiliated aid or relief organizations. Literally thousands of religious aid organizations exist.

In the sciences before and after the dark ages it was religious institutions that brought about most advances in science and the arts.

Faith can bring about great good as well as great evil. Like anything else you have to take the good with the bad. So yes, great faith and the billions of people it has helped since the dawn of man are indeed worthy of every accolade.

Faith is one of the WORST justifications (if not THE worst) for believing something. If someone does something because they believe reason and evidence supports their actions then at least a discussion/debate can occur. For people with faith, its not possible. You can't reason or debate someone who invokes "faith". This is why christianity, islam, and other faith based religions are divisive. Faith-based claims are often incompatible with eachother (even amongst competing sects). This leads to conflict because there is no way to reconcile, debate, or discuss differences because faith is NOT based on evidence or reason.

Unlike your train of thought...

We don't throw out the baby with the bath water. :)

"Faith" was the "reason" that Muslims flew airplanes into buildings.

Faith was the reasons millions of dollars in aid went to earthquake and tsunami victims etc.

Make excuses and dance around the issue all you want. The evidence is incontrovertible.

Yes it is. I have posted it. :mrgreen:

Turn on the internet and you can watch yourself as Muslims exclaim with pride that their faith in the Koran, Allah, and the paradise that awaits them in the afterlife, just before they blow themselves up. This faith-based certainty is NOT a problem exclusive to Muslims. Christians are IDENTICAL in their certainty.

Not all Muslims are extremists or represent extremist ideals. Same goes for Christians etc. I mean you can throw around absolutes, but it really means little in the realm of thought or debate. I mean really, a blanket statement is nothing but a lie wrapped in a stereotype.
 
Last edited:
Where do you get that from?

Faith based organizations is what I meant to say. I was not talking about or including government aid.

In the end it is irrelevant to my point. The point is lots of faith based money going to charity etc.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom